Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN
CONTENTS
Key
Findings................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
What
is
ALEC? ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Corporate
Money ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Scholarship
Fund..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
ALECs
Ohio
After-Party .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Other
Corporations
with
Ohio
and
ALEC
Ties ....................................................................................................................... 10
Governor
John
Kasich
and
ALEC............................................................................................................................................... 10
Ohio
Legislators
and
ALEC........................................................................................................................................................ 11
Rep.
John
Adams................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Other
Ohio
Legislators .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Task
Force
Members ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
ALECs
Influence
on
Ohio
Law .................................................................................................................................................. 14
2011
Legislative
Impact......................................................................................................................................................... 14
ALEC
Inspired
Legislation
in
Ohio............................................................................................................................................. 14
Education .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Ohio
Legislation: ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Ohio
Legislation:
S.B.
88.................................................................................................................................................... 22
Voter
ID ................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Ohio
Legislation: ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Immigration .......................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Ohio
Legislation:
H.B.
286 ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Labor ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Ohio
Legislation:
S.B.
5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Ohio
Legislation:
S.B.
89.................................................................................................................................................... 39
Consumer
Rights ................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Ohio
Legislation:
H.B.
275 ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Healthcare............................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Ohio
Legislation:
Health
Care
Amendment,
Issue
3 .......................................................................................................... 45
Prison
Privatization ............................................................................................................................................................... 46
Ohio
Legislation:
HB
153
Private
Prisons ....................................................................................................................... 46
Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
KEY
FINDINGS
The
American
Legislative
Exchange
Council,
or
ALEC,
serves
as
a
voice
for
corporate
special
interests
in
state
legislatures
across
the
country.
Corporate
executives,
lawyers,
or
lobbyists
who
are
ALEC
members
vote
behind
closed
doors
with
ALEC
legislators
to
approve
model
legislation
designed
to
promote
corporate
interests.
Then,
ALEC
legislators
push
for
those
ALEC
bills
to
become
law
without
any
disclosure
of
the
role
corporations
played
in
writing
or
pre-voting
on
the
bills.
Ohio
has
a
high
concentration
of
ALEC
legislators
about
43%
of
Ohios
current
legislators
are
ALEC
members.
Close
analysis
of
legislative,
financial
and
other
records
reveal
that
ALEC
has
had
a
major
impact
on
the
governance
of
Ohio.
This
report
examines
the
influence
of
ALEC
corporations
over
Ohios
legislative
proposals
throughout
a
wide
range
of
issues,
including
education,
voter
suppression,
immigration,
workers
rights,
consumer
rights,
health
care
and
prison
systems.
A
remarkable
number
of
ALEC
proposals
have
made
it
into
Ohio
law
in
2011.
Between
January
and
October
of
2011,
33
bills
were
introduced
in
the
Ohio
legislature
that
are
identical
to
or
contain
elements
from
64
different
ALEC
model
proposals.
Nine
of
those
bills,
containing
elements
from
33
pieces
of
ALEC
legislation,
have
been
signed
into
law.
ALEC
corporations
and
lobbyists
have
given
prolifically
to
Ohio
legislators,
both
directly
and
indirectly.
In
the
past
ten
years,
employees
of
the
22
corporations
on
ALECs
Private
Enterprise
Board
have
spent
$9.3
million
on
state
1 political
campaigns
in
Ohio,
an
amount
that
does
not
include
the
many
other
ALEC
member
corporations
that
underwrite
ALECs
operations
but
do
not
have
a
seat
on
the
corporate
board.
Local
lobbyists
and
global
corporations
have
made
secret
contributions
to
an
Ohio
scholarship
fund
that
funnels
money
through
ALEC,
a
non-profit
group,
to
be
used
to
reward
legislators
with
trips
to
attend
ALEC
meetings
at
posh
resorts.
The
corporate
and
lobbyist
money
held
by
ALEC
is
used
to
reimburse
legislators
and
their
families
for
their
lodging
and
other
food
and
travel
expenses
for
conferences
in
places
like
New
Orleans
and
San
Diego,
where
the
politicians
are
wined
and
dined
by
lobbyists
via
ALEC.
This
is
in
addition
to
the
thousands
of
dollars
corporate
members
pay
in
ALEC
dues
and
fees
to
sit
on
ALEC
task
forces,
as
well
as
other
spending
such
as
underwriting
the
conventions
or
hosting
dinners
at
ALEC
conferences
for
Ohio
legislators
and
their
spouses.
Gov.
John
Kasich
has
downplayed
his
close
ties
to
ALEC.
ALECs
internal
talking
points
praise
Governor
John
Kasich
as
someone
who
helped
mold
ALEC
in
its
formative
years.
Kasich
served
as
Legislative
Aide
to
ALECs
longest
serving
National
Chairman,
former
State
Senator
Donald
Buz
Lukens.
While
Kasichs
office
has
sought
to
distance
him
from
the
organization
by
saying
he
is
not
an
active
member
(since
he
is
not
a
legislator),
Kasich
was
photographed
last
year
attending
an
ALEC
event
and
speaking
with
lobbyists.
In
addition
to
signing
ALEC
model
bills
into
law,
he
has
put
forward
major
proposals
that
share
titles,
messaging
strategies,
and
policy
elements
with
ALEC
model
legislation.
State
Rep.
John
Adams
is
deeply
involved
with
ALEC
and
has
written
ethically
questionable
letters
while
advancing
ALECs
agenda.
The
man
charged
with
managing
the
Republican
legislative
agenda
on
the
Ohio
House
floor,
Majority
Whip
John
Adams,
is
deeply
involved
with
ALEC,
and
was
named
2010
ALEC
State
Legislator
of
the
Year.
Unlike
some
politicians,
Adams
does
credit
the
group
with
influencing
his
legislative
proposals,
such
as
his
$12
billion
plan
to
eliminate
Ohios
income
tax.
He
has
3
also written thank you letters to lobbyists who have underwritten parties and travel expenses for ALEC legislators, writing, When your business is a success, it benefits all of Ohio. He has also acknowledged that ALECs fundraising activities walk a legal tightrope. ALECs legislative work extends far beyond providing a forum for corporations to get their bills into lawmakers hands. ALEC encourages legislators to contact ALECs public affairs department for assistance with drafting press releases, booking radio and television appearances, building media lists, and participating in media training. They also provide background research, talking points, sample press releases, and other media resources. ALEC also regularly contacts state legislators and asks them to join national sign-on letters opposing federal initiatives, such as President Barack Obamas health care plan.
WHAT
IS
ALEC?
ALEC,
or
the
American
Legislative
Exchange
Council,
is
a
501(c)(3)
organization
that
serves
as
a
one-stop
shop
for
corporations
looking
to
get
special-interest
legislation
introduced
and
passed.
Founded
in
1973
by
Paul
Weyrich,
who
helped
build
a
nationwide
conservative
political
infrastructure
following
the
re-election
of
President
Richard
Nixon,
ALEC
has
become
a
very
influential
voice
for
corporate
special
interests
in
state
capitols
across
the
country.
When
legislators
in
multiple
states
introduce
similar
or
identical
bills
to
boost
corporate
power
and
profits,
undermine
workers
rights,
privatize
public
education,
or
limit
corporate
accountability
for
pollution
or
harm
to
consumers,
the
odds
are
high
that
such
legislation
was
written
by
corporate
lobbyists
working
through
ALEC.
According
to
ALECs
own
legislative
scorecard,
826
pieces
of
ALEC
legislation
were
introduced
in
state
legislatures
around
the
country
and
115
were
enacted
in
2009
alone.
ALEC
welcomes
executives,
lawyers
and
lobbyists
from
nearly
300
corporations
to
sit
alongside
state
legislators,
as
equals,
2 on
task
forces
where
ALEC
boasts
they
have
a
voice
and
a
vote
on
model
legislation.
After
corporations
(and
in
some
cases,
legislators)
bring
a
proposed
model
bill
to
a
Task
Force,
the
corporate
and
legislative
Task
Force
members
vote
on
whether
to
approve
it.
ALEC
claims
that
all
model
legislation
then
must
obtain
final
approval
from
ALECs
Legislative
Board
of
Directors,
which
does
not
include
corporate
members,
but
ALEC
Task
Force
Operating
Procedures
suggest
their
approval
is
basically
a
rubber
stamp:
model
legislation
approved
by
the
Task
Forces
automatically
becomes
an
"official"
ALEC
model
bill
thirty
days
later,
unless
a
Board
member
requests
review
by
the
entire
Board.
Regardless,
corporate
representatives
are
full
voting
members
of
each
Task
Force,
so
corporations
have
already
voted
on
these
bills
by
the
time
they
get
to
the
legislative
board
for
ratification.
The
legislative
board
meets
jointly
with
the
corporate
board,
and
the
corporate
board
members
bankroll
ALEC.
ALEC
describes
itself
in
internal
documents
as
the
ideal
means
of
creating
and
delivering
public
policy
ideas
aimed
at
protecting
and
expanding
our
free
society.
It
brags
about
enacting
many
of
the
cutting-edge,
conservative
policies
that
now
become
law
in
the
states
and
says
it
has
amassed
an
unmatched
record
of
achieving
ground-breaking
changes
in
3 public-policy.
According
to
their
own
calculations,
Each
year,
close
to
1,000
bills,
based
at
least
in
part
on
ALEC
Model
4 Legislation
are
introduced
in
the
states.
Of
these,
approximately
17
percent
become
law.
ALECs
services
extend
beyond
serving
as
a
bill
factory
for
model
legislation
on
corporate
wish
lists.
ALECs
magazine
states
that
members
are
encouraged
to
contact
ALECs
public
affairs
department
for
assistance
with
drafting
press
releases,
booking
radio
and
television
appearances,
building
media
lists,
and
participating
in
media
training.
They
also
provide
background
research,
talking
points,
sample
press
releases,
and
other
media
resources
related
to
their
model
legislation
5 and
resolutions.
ALEC
has
selected
key
Ohio
legislators
to
hold
leadership
positions
within
the
organization.
State
Senator
Bill
Seitz
sits
on
6 ALECs
Board
of
Directors,
and
State
Rep.
John
Adams
serves
as
ALECs
Ohio
State
Co-Chairman.
ALEC
fosters
a
spirit
of
equality
between
corporate
lobbyists
and
elected
state
legislators.
There
is
an
elected
official
chairman
as
well
as
a
private
sector
chairman.
In
Ohio,
Ed
Kozelek
serves
as
private
sector
state
Co-Chairman
for
the
state.
Kozelek
is
the
Vice
President
of
Government
Relations-Midwest
at
Time
Warner
Cable
and
President
of
the
Ohio
Cable
Telecommunications
Association.
Kozelek
is
so
intimately
tied
to
the
goings-on
at
the
state
legislature
that
he
serves
78 as
secretary
to
the
Capitol
Square
Foundation,
which
oversees
fundraising
for
the
building
that
Ohios
lawmakers
meet
in.
9
In private emails to Kozelek, high-level ALEC employees acknowledge Kozeleks power to get results from Ohio legislators. In early 2010, Kozelek e-mailed Seth Cooper, who served as ALECs Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force staff director. Kozelek asked for the names of all the Ohio and Wisconsin legislators that signed a letter to the FCC that ALEC has circulated opposing Net Neutrality, a major issue for Time Warners internet and cable businesses. Cooper replied that while he thought only one Wisconsin legislator signed the letter, We had a terrific response from OH which 10 11 I suspect you had something to do with.
CORPORATE
MONEY
The
most
succinct
look
at
ALECs
dependence
on
corporate
financing
at
the
national
level
comes
from
the
Center
for
Media
12 and
Democracys
ALEC
Exposed,
which
found:
More
than
98%
of
ALEC's
revenues
come
from
sources
other
than
legislative
dues,
such
as
corporations,
corporate
trade
groups,
and
corporate
foundations.
Each
corporate
member
pays
an
annual
fee
of
between
$7,000
and
$25,000
a
year,
and
if
a
corporation
participates
in
any
of
the
nine
task
forces,
additional
fees
apply,
from
$2,500
to
$10,000
each
year.
ALEC
also
receives
direct
grants
from
corporations,
such
as
$1.4
million
from
ExxonMobil
from
1998-2009.
It
has
also
received
grants
from
some
of
the
biggest
foundations
funded
by
corporate
CEOs
in
the
country,
such
as:
the
Koch
family
Charles
G.
Koch
Foundation,
the
Koch-managed
Claude
R.
Lambe
Foundation,
the
Scaife
family
Allegheny
Foundation,
the
Coors
family
Castle
Rock
Foundation,
to
name
a
few.
Less
than
2%
of
ALECs
funding
comes
from
Membership
Dues
of
$50
per
year
paid
by
state
legislators,
a
steeply
discounted
price
that
may
run
afoul
of
state
gift
bans.
Under
ALEC
by-laws
provided
to
the
IRS
in
2009,
ALEC
state
corporate
and
legislative
co-chairs
have
a
responsibility
to
fundraise
for
ALEC.
Corporate
money
is
solicited
for
several
purposes.
In
addition
to
ALEC
dues,
ALEC
state
chairs
ask
13 corporations
to
give
to
state-specific
ALEC
conference
meals
and
after-parties,
as
well
as
the
ALEC
Scholarship
Fund.
SCHOLARSHIP
FUND
One
unique
feature
of
ALEC
is
the
scholarship
fund.
Reimbursement
for
the
vast
majority
of
legislators
conference
expenses
are
made
through
the
ALEC
Scholarship
Fund,
which
is
funded
through
donations
from
for-profit
corporations
and
the
lobbyists
that
represent
them.
One
of
the
best
metaphors
for
the
ALEC
corporate-political
relationship
comes
from
an
unlabeled
ledger
sheet
obtained
through
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request.
Under
the
credit
column
is
a
list
of
corporations
and
under
the
debit
14 column
is
a
list
of
Ohio
politicians.
The
following
corporate
donations
were
logged :
Diageo
North
America
-
$1,000
Procter
&
Gamble
-
$1,500
Finney,
Stagnaro,
Saba
&
Peterson
-
$250
Gary
G
Koch
-
$500
Abbot
Laboratories
-
$500
Key
Bank
-
$500
Purdue
Pharma
-
$500
American
Petroleum
Institute
-
$500
NRA Institute for Legislative Action - $500 Sean P Dunn - $500 SZD Whiteboard - $500 Cardinal Health - $500 Willa J Ebersole (VP of Thomas Pappas & Associates) - $1,000 CashAmerica - $1,000 Ohio Childrens Hospital Association - $1,000 Vorys Sater, Seymour and Pease - $1,000 Ohio Farmers Insurance - $1,000 Columbia Gas of Ohio - $1,000 Duke Energy - $1,000 Copart General Disbursement - $1,000 Roetzel & Andress - $1,000 NFIB - $1,000 RAI Services Company (RJ Reynolds Tobacco) - $1,000 AT&T - $1,500 Ohio Cable Telecommunications Association - $1,500 Ohio Association of Wholesalers-Distributors - $1,000 National Cable Telecommunications Association - $1,000 Huntington Bancshares - $500 Greater Cleveland Partnership PAC - $500 Astellas Pharma US - $300
Under the Debit column are the names of 20 legislators, including Ohio House Speaker Bill Batchelder, Speaker Pro Tempore Louis Blessing and Majority Whip John Adams. The legislators received an average of $1,900, and the amount they received corresponds to receipts submitted to the ALEC Scholarship Fund. These figures are small for the giant corporations involved but this little bit of money goes a long way in providing ALEC legislators with the perk of trips to luxury resorts to be wined and dined alongside corporate lobbyists and prospective donors. Ohio legislators make a base salary of $60,000 a year before taxes, and the ALEC scholarships help fund working vacations in distant cities where corporations sponsor exclusive cigar parties, shooting trips and other excursions. The money in the ledger, funneled from corporations through ALEC, a 501(c)(3), can cover not only a legislators registration, flights and hotel costs, but also can help defray some costs associated with bringing their spouse and children along to the conventions, which are underwritten by numerous global corporations. According to its 2009 tax returns, ALEC spent over $250,000 in childcare expenses so that legislators could bring their entire family along to their conferences, which are ostensibly business trips. The childcare program is called Kids Congress, and provides supervision for kids as young as six months old. Reimbursement forms indicate that several Ohio legislators 15 participated, receiving thousands of dollars for family members to go on what amounted to a vacation. In 2009, State Rep. Seth Morgan was cleared to receive $3,454.36 from ALECs Ohio Scholarship Fund. That year corporate donors and lobbyist money reimbursed him $750 for his three children to attend Kids Congress and another $350 for his wife to attend the conference. They also covered mileage ($530.34) and meals for his entire family on the drive to Atlanta 16 and back. Rep. Todd Snitchler also registered his family and the scholarship fund covered the cost of airfare for one of his children. Sen. Kris Jordan and Rep. John Adams also received compensation for their spouses to attend that year. Sen. 17 18 Tom Niehaus sought compensation for his wifes meals but was denied, since she wasnt registered.
The lines of who is paying for what is often blurry. When State Rep. Jarrod Martin posted sight-seeing photos from his ALEC trip to San Diego on Facebook, he stated he paid for his own trip, no tax payer money was expended. While Martin technically did pay for his own trip, at least up-front, he was promptly reimbursed $1,903.45 from the scholarship fund. The scholarship fund is replenished through fundraisers accepting private, corporate and PAC monies, such as the one held at the Athletic Club in Columbus in February 2011. Organized by Time Warner lobbyists and Rep. John Adams, a $5,000 Platinum donation at this event bought sponsors access to the Ohio House and Senate majority leadership teams over a 19 20 21 dinner at Mitchells Steakhouse. The attendees are listed below:
Although
ALEC
flatly
denies
that
they
are
a
lobbying
organization,
the
majority
of
the
attendees
to
this
function
are
registered
lobbyists.
On
the
same
day
as
the
fundraiser
in
Columbus,
State
Rep.
John
Adams
sent
Paul
Weirtz,
a
registered
lobbyist
on
behalf
of
ALEC
member
AT&T,
a
letter
on
ALEC
stationery
requesting
$5,000
for
the
scholarship
fund.
Adams
references
boilerplate- type
language
that
the
money
solicited
from
lobbyists
for
events
with
lobbyists
will
be
used
in
a
way
that
is
restricted
by
23 law:
We
also
acknowledge
that
we
understand
federal
and
state
law
includes
limitations
on
the
manner
in
which
corporate
contributions
can
be
spent
by
organizations
that
are
conducting
certain
political
activities.
We
also
acknowledge
that
federal
and
state
law
limits
the
manner
in
which
we
spend
contributions
received
from
your
company
and
will
comply
with
such
restrictions.
ALEC
isnt
shy
about
collecting
its
corporate
money
either
Time
Warner
was
sent
an
invoice
by
ALEC
directly
for
the
24 $10,000
it
owed
to
the
Ohio
Scholarship
Fund.
22
An examination of ALEC mailing and donor lists for corporations with Ohio mailing addresses revealed the names of these 29 30 31 corporate representatives, in addition to others detailed in the table above: Michael Weinstein, American Electric Power Mike Prentiss, Procter & Gamble Jack Dalton & Margie Nimmo, LifeSafer Interlock David Frissora, Wendys International Libby Brunswold, Med Immune
10
Kasichs influence is likely due to his unique history with the organization. In 1977, Ohio State Senator Donald Buz Lukens 34 took over the helm at ALEC and would go on to become its longest serving National Chairman. Lukens legislative aide at 35 the time was John Kasich. If State Chair John Adams reliance on his legislative aide to perform extensive work on behalf of ALEC work is any guide, Kasich may have spent substantial amounts of time staffing the organization in its formative years before he would go on to win his own legislative seat and join the organization as a member. Kasichs involvement doesnt end with his time in the legislature. Kasich was recently photographed attending an ALEC 36 meeting on December 1, 2010, where he is seen talking to private sector members. Kasich has not only signed a number of ALEC-influenced bills into law, he also introduced major initiatives in his 2011 State of the State address that were similar or identical to ALEC proposals taking root in other states. For example, weeks before Kasich announced his prison privatization proposal on March 15, 2011, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, ALECs 2011 Thomas Jefferson Freedom Award winner, introduced a very similar measure. As a result of Kasichs measure, Ohios Lake Erie Correctional Institute was bought by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which had spent two decades sitting on ALECs Public Safety and Education Task Force, an ALEC body which approved numerous model bills to privatize prisons and increase sentences. (The company, which has benefited enormously from ALECs privatization efforts, claims it is no longer 37 38 39 40 41 on that task force as of late 2010, after critical reports about its extensive role in ALEC surfaced earlier that year.) 42 43 44 45
11
12
Commerce, Insurance & Economic Development Rep. Anne Gonzales (R-19) Rep. Cheryl Grossman (R-23) Rep. Andy Thompson (R-93) Rep. Joseph Uecker (R-66)
Energy, Environment & Agriculture Sen. Kris Jordan (R-19) Sen. Tom Niehaus (R-14) Rep. Bruce Goodwin (R-74)
Health & Human Services Sen. David Burke (R-26) Rep. Barbara Sears (R-46) Rep. Lynn Wachtmann (R-75)
Public Safety & Elections Rep. Casey Kozlowski (R-99) Sen. Frank LaRose (R-27) Rep. Jarrod Martin (R-70)
Tax & Fiscal Policy Rep. John Adams (R-78) Rep. Ron Maag (R-35)
Telecommunications & Information Technology Rep. John Adams (R-78) Rep. Terry Boose (R-58) 13
EDUCATION
OHIO
LEGISLATION:
HB
153
Innovation
Schools
ALEC
Model
Legislation:
The
Innovation
Schools
and
School
Districts
Act
Sponsors
(in
bold)
and
co-sponsors:
17
ALEC
Representatives,
11
ALEC
Senators
Rep.
Ron
Amstutz
(Rep-3)
Rep.
Jim
Buchy
(R-77)
Rep.
John
Adams
(R-78)
Rep.
Courtney
E.
Combs
(R-54)
Rep.
William
G.
Batchelder
(R-69)
Rep.
Cherly
L.
Grossman
(R-23)
Rep.
Peter
A.
Beck
(R-67)
Rep.
Robert
D.
Hackett
(R-84)
Rep.
Louis
Blessing
Jr.
(R-29)
Rep.
David
L.
Hall
(R-97)
Rep.
Terry
R.
Boose
(R-58)
Rep.
Ronald
Maag
(R-35),
ALEC
14
Rep. Jeffrey A. McClain (R-82) Sen. Keith Faber (R-12) Rep. Cliff Rosenberger (R-82), ALEC Sen. Clifford Kime Hite (R-1) Rep. Margaret Ann Ruhl (R-90) Sen. Shannon Jones (R-7) Rep. Gerald L. Stebelton (R-5) Sen. Frank LaRose (R-27) Rep. Joseph W. Uecker (R-66) Sen. Peggy B. Lehner (R-6) Sen. Kevin Bacon (R-3) Sen. Tom Niehaus (R-14) Sen. William P. Coley (R-4) Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-31) Sen. David T. Daniels (R-17) Sen. Mark D. Wagoner Jr. (R-2) Last Action: 06/30/2011, Signed into law by Governor John Kasich th Legislative Session: 129 General Assembly Regular Session 2011-2012 Similarities/Analysis: H.B. 153 is an omnibus budget bill riddled with ALEC model legislation. In particular, the Innovation Schools and Innovation School Zones section that amends Department of Education policy is closely modeled, and at times copied word for word, from ALECs Innovation Schools and School Districts Act. This section of H.B. 153 allows schools, groups of schools and districts to establish innovation schools within the public school framework. Despite an apparent emphasis on local sovereignty, the approval process is finalized with state-level officials. Like so many ALEC proposals, some of the innovative remedies put forth by the law would remove collective bargaining rights and waive education laws, administrative rules and district requirements regarding conditions of employment. ALEC Model Legislation: The Innovation Schools and Ohio Legislation (as introduced, analysis): H.B. 153 School Districts Act Section 4. {Innovation Plans Submission Contents} Applying for designation as an innovation school or innovation school zone (C) Each innovation plan, whether submitted by a public school or created by a local school board through (R.C. 3302.06) collaboration between the local school board and a When a school applies to the school board to be public school, shall include the following information: designated as an innovation school, the application must include an innovation plan that contains the (1) A statement of the public schools mission and why following: designation as an innovation school would enhance the schools ability to achieve (1) A statement of the schools mission and an its mission; explanation of how the designation would enhance the schools ability to fulfill that mission; (2) A description of the innovations the public school would implement, which may include, but need not be (2) A description of the innovations the school would limited to, innovations in school staffing; curriculum implement; and assessment; class scheduling; use of financial and other resources; and faculty recruitment, employment, evaluation, and compensation; (3) A listing of the programs, policies, or operational (3) An explanation of how those innovations would documents within the public school that would be affect the schools programs affected by the public schools within the public school and policies, including that would be affected by the public schools identified innovation and the manner in which they would be (a) the schools educational program, affected. The programs, policies, or operational documents may include, but need not be limited to: (b) the length of the school day and school year,
15
(a) the research-based educational program the public school would implement; (b) the length of school day and school year at the public school; (c) the student promotion and graduation policies to be implemented at the public school; (d) the public schools assessment plan; (e) the proposed budget for the public school; and (f) the proposed staffing plan for the public school. (4) An identification of the improvements in academic performance that the public school expects to achieve in implementing the innovations; (5) An estimate of the cost savings and increased efficiencies, if any, the public school expects to achieve in implementing its identified innovation; (6) Evidence that a majority of the administrators employed at the public school, a majority of the teachers employed at the public school, and a majority of the school advisory council for the public school consent to designation as an innovation school; (7) A statement of the level of support for designation as an innovation school demonstrated by the other persons employed at the public school, the students and parents of students enrolled in the public school, and the community surrounding the public school; (D) Each plan for creating an innovation school zone, whether submitted by a group of public schools or created by a local school board through collaboration with a group of public schools, shall include the information specified in Subsection (C) of this section for each public school that would be included in the innovation school zone. A plan for creating an innovation school zone shall also include the following additional information: (1) A description of how innovations in the public schools in the school innovation zone would be integrated to achieve results that would be less likely to be accomplished by each public school working alone; (c) the student promotion policy, (d) the assessment of students, (e) the schools budget, and (f) the schools staffing levels;
(4) A description of the improvements in student academic performance that the school expects to achieve with the innovations; (5) An estimate of the cost savings and increased efficiencies, if any, that the school expects to achieve with the innovations; (6) A description of any education laws, State Board of Education rules, district requirements, or provisions of a collective bargaining agreement that would need to be waived to implement the innovations; and (7) Evidence that a majority of the teachers and a majority of the administrators assigned to the school consent to seeking the designation and a statement of the level of support for seeking the designation from other school personnel, students, parents, and members of the community in which the school is located. Two or more schools in the same district may apply for designation as an innovation school zone, if the schools share common interests, such as geographical proximity or similar educational programs, or if the schools serve the same students as they progress to higher grades (an elementary school that feeds into a middle school, for example, could jointly apply). The application must contain the same information as above for each participating school, plus (1) a description of how innovations in the participating schools would be integrated to achieve results that would be less likely to be achieved by each school alone and (2) an estimate of economies of scale that would be realized by joint implementation of the innovations.
16
(2) An estimate of any economies of scale that would be achieved by innovations implemented jointly by the public schools within the innovation school zone; Section 5. {Suggested Innovation} (A) In considering or creating an innovation plan or a plan for creating an innovation school zone, each local school board is strongly encouraged to consider innovations in the following areas: (1) Curriculum and academic standards and assessments; (2) Accountability measures, including but not limited to expanding the use of a variety of accountability measures to more accurately present a complete measure of student learning and accomplishment. The accountability measures adopted by an innovation school or an innovation school zone may include, but need not be limited to: (a) use of graduation or exit examinations; (b) use of end-of-course examinations; (c) use of student portfolio reviews; (d) use of national and international accountability measures such as the national assessment of educational progress and the program for international student assessment; (e) measuring the percentage of students continuing into higher education; and (f) measuring the percentage of students simultaneously obtaining a high school diploma and an associates degree or a career and technical education certificate. (3) Provision of services, including but not limited to special education services; services for gifted and talented students; services for students for whom English is not the dominant language; educational services for students at risk of academic failure, expulsion, or dropping out; and support services provided by the expulsion, or dropping out; and support services provided by the department of human services or county social services agencies;
Review of applications by district (R.C. 3302.061) The school board must approve or disapprove an application for designation as an innovation school or an innovation school zone within 60 days. If the board disapproves an application, it must provide a written explanation for its decision. The applicants may reapply for the designation at any time. In evaluating applications, the school board must give preference to those that propose innovations in one or more of the following areas: (1) Curriculum; (2) Student assessments, other than the state achievement assessments; (3) Class scheduling; (4) Accountability measures, including innovations that expand the measures used in order to collect more complete data about student performance. For this purpose, schools may consider use of such measures as end-of-course exams, portfolios of student work, nationally or internationally normed assessments, the percentage of students enrolling in higher education, or the percentage of students simultaneously obtaining a diploma and an associates degree or industry certification.
17
(4) Teacher recruitment, training, preparation, and professional development; (5) Teacher employment; (6) Performance expectations and evaluation procedures for teachers and principals; (7) Compensation for teachers, principals, and other school building personnel, including but not limited to performance pay plans, total compensation plans, and other innovations with regard to retirement and other benefits; (8) School governance and the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of principals in innovation schools or schools within an innovation school zone; and (9) Preparation and counseling of students for transition to higher education or the work force. Section 7. {District of Innovation Designation} (B) A local school board that seeks designation as a district of innovation shall submit one or more innovation plans or plans for creating an innovation school zone to the commissioner for review and comment by the commissioner and the state board. Within 60 days after receiving a local school boards plan, the commission and the state board shall respond to the local school board with any suggested changes or additions to the plan, including but not limited to suggestions for further innovations or for measures to increase the likelihood that the innovations will result in greater academic achievement within the innovation schools or innovation school zones. Based on the commissioners and the state boards comments, the local school board may choose to withdraw and resubmit its innovation plan or plan for creating an innovation school zone. (C) (1) Within 60 days after receiving a local school boards innovation plan or plan for creating an innovation school zone, the state board shall designate the local school boards school district as a district of innovation unless the state board concludes that the submitted plan: (a) is likely to result in a decrease in academic achievement in the innovation schools or innovation
Designation as district of innovation (R.C. 3302.062, 3302.066, and 3302.067) Once a school board has designated an innovation school or innovation school zone within the district, it must submit the innovation plan of the participating schools to the State Board of Education. Within 60 days after receipt of the plan, the State Board must designate the district as a school district of innovation. However, the State Board must deny the designation if it determines the plan is not financially feasible or will likely result in decreased academic achievement. A school board may request the State Board to make a preliminary assessment of an innovation plan prior to formally applying for designation as a school district of innovation. The State Board must review the plan and, within 60 days, recommend changes that would improve the plan. Designation as a school district of innovation grants the participating schools permission to implement the innovation plan. The school board or a participating school may accept donations to support the plans implementation. At any time, the school board, in collaboration with the participating schools, may revise the innovation plan to further improve student performance. A majority of the teachers and a majority of the administrators in each participating school must
18
school zones; or (b) is not fiscally feasible. (2) If the state board does not designate a school district as a district of innovation, it shall provide to the local school board a written explanation of the basis for its decision. The local school board may resubmit an amended innovation plan or plan for creating an innovation school zone and seek designation of its school district as a school district of innovation at any time after denial. Section 8. {District of Innovation Waiver of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements} (A) Upon designation of a district of innovation, the state board shall waive any statutes or rules specified in the school districts innovation plan as they pertain to the innovation schools or innovation school zones of the district of innovation; except that the state board shall not waive: (1) [state teachers retirement and pension plan]; and (2) established regulations and procedures for administration of the [public school transportation fund]. (B) Each district of innovation shall continue to be subject to all statutes and rules that are not waived by the state board pursuant to Subsection (A) of this section, including but not limited to all statutes and rules concerning implementation of: (1) the [state student assessment program]; (2) school accountability reports; and (3) the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. sec. 6301 et seq. (C) Designation as a district of innovation shall not affect a school districts: (1) total program funding; or (2) eligibility for funding. (D) Each district of innovation that receives a waiver pursuant to this section shall specify the manner in which the innovation school or the schools within the innovation school zone shall comply with the intent of the waived statutes or rules and shall be accountable to consent to the revisions.
Waiver of education laws and rules (R.C. 3302.063) The bill requires the State Board of Education, in most cases, to waive education laws or administrative rules necessary to implement an innovation plan. A waiver applies only to the schools participating in the innovation plan. But the bill prohibits the State Board from waiving any law or rule regarding: (1) School district funding; (2) Provision of services to students with disabilities and gifted students; (3) Requirements related to career-technical education that are necessary to comply with federal law; (4) Administration of the state achievement assessments and diagnostic assessments (and
end-of-course
exams
and
a
nationally
standardized
test
required
as
part
of
the
new
high
school
assessment
system
to
be
developed
by
the
State
Board
and
the
Chancellor
of
the
Board
of
Regents86);
(5)
Issuance
of
the
annual
school
district
and
building
report
cards;
(6)
Implementation
of
the
Department
of
Educations
Model
of
Differentiated
Accountability,
which
specifies
sanctions
for
underperforming
schools
as
required
by
the
federal
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act;
(7)
Reporting
of
education
data
to
the
Department;
(8)
Criminal
records
checks
of
school
employees;
and
86
See
R.C.
3301.0712,
not
in
the
bill.
(9)
State
retirement
systems
for
teachers
and
other
19
the state for such compliance. Section 9. {District of Innovation Collective Bargaining Agreement} (2) For an innovation school, waiver of one or more of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be based on obtaining the approval, by means of a secret ballot vote, of at least 60 percent of the members of the collective bargaining unit who are employed at the innovation school. (3) For an innovation school, waiver of one or more of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be based on obtaining, at each school included in the innovation school zone, the approval of at least 60 percent of the members of the collective bargaining unit who are employed at the school. The innovation school zone shall seek to obtain approval of the waivers through a secret ballot vote of the members of the collective bargaining unit at each school included in the innovation school zone. The local school board for the innovation school zone may choose to revise the plan for creating an innovation school zone to remove from the zone any school in which at least 60 percent of the members of the collective bargaining unit employed at the school do not vote to waive the identified provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. (5) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (4) of this Subsection (A), waiver of identified provisions of a collective bargaining agreement for an innovation school or the public schools within an innovation school zone pursuant to this Subsection (A) shall continue so long as the innovation school remains an innovation school or public school remains a part of the innovation school zone. A waiver approved pursuant to this Subsection (A) shall continue to apply to any substantially similar provision that is included in a new or renewed collective bargaining agreement for the schools of the district of innovation. Section 10. {District of Innovation Review of Innovation Schools and Innovation School Zones} (A) Three years after the local school board of a district of innovation approves an innovation plan or a plan for creating an innovation school zone, and every three years thereafter, the local school board shall review the school employees.
Waiver of collective bargaining agreement (R.C. 3302.064) The bill also permits the waiver of specific provisions of a collective bargaining agreement to implement an innovation plan. To obtain a waiver, at least 60% of the members of the bargaining unit covered by the agreement who work in a participating school must vote, by secret ballot, to approve the waiver. In the case of an innovation school zone, this 60% threshold applies to each participating school individually. If a participating school does not meet this threshold, the school board may remove the school from the innovation school zone. A member of the bargaining unit who works at a participating school (and presumably did not vote for the waiver) may request a transfer to another district school. The school board must make every reasonable effort to accommodate the request. Once a waiver is approved, it remains in effect relative to any substantially similar provision in future collective bargaining agreements. Each collective bargaining agreement entered into by a school district on or after the bills effective date must allow for the waiver of its provisions in order to implement an innovation plan.
Regular performance reviews (R.C. 3302.065; conforming changes in R.C. 3302.063, and 3302.064(D)) Every three years, the school board must review the
20
level of performance of the innovation school and each public school included in the innovation school zone and determine whether the innovation school or innovation school zone is achieving or making performance of each innovation school and innovation school zone to determine if it is achieving, or making sufficient progress toward achieving, the improvements in student performance described in its innovation plan. If the board finds that a school has not demonstrated sufficient progress, it may revoke the schools designation as an innovation school or remove the school from the innovation school zone. The board also may revoke the designation of all participating schools as an innovation school zone. If a schools designation is revoked or the school is removed from an innovation school zone, the school again becomes subject to all laws, rules, and provisions of a collective bargaining agreement that had been waived to implement the innovation plan.
adequate
progress
toward
achieving
the
academic
performance
results
identified
in
the
schools
or
zones
innovation
plan.
The
local
school
board,
in
collaboration
with
the
innovation
school
or
the
innovation
school
zone,
may
revise
the
innovation
plan,
including
but
not
limited
to
revising
the
identification
of
the
provisions
of
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
that
need
to
be
waived
to
implement
the
innovations,
as
necessary
to
improve
or
continue
to
improve
academic
performance
at
the
innovation
school
or
innovation
school
zone.
Any
revisions
to
the
innovation
plan
shall
require
the
consent
of
a
majority
of
the
teachers
and
a
majority
of
the
administrators
employed
at
and
a
majority
of
the
school
advisory
council
for
each
affected
public
school.
(B)
(1)
Following
review
of
an
innovation
schools
performance,
if
a
local
school
board
finds
that
the
academic
performance
of
students
enrolled
in
the
innovation
school
is
not
improving
at
a
sufficient
rate,
the
local
school
board
may
revoke
the
schools
innovation
status.
(2)
Following
review
of
the
performance
of
an
innovation
school
zone,
if
a
local
school
board
finds
that
the
academic
performance
of
students
enrolled
in
one
or
more
of
the
public
schools
included
in
the
innovation
school
zone
is
not
improving
at
a
sufficient
rate,
the
local
school
board
may
remove
the
underperforming
public
school
or
schools
from
the
innovation
school
zone
or
may
revoke
the
designation
of
the
innovation
school
zone.
Section
11.
{Reporting}
(A)
On
or
before
March
1,
2010,
and
on
or
before
March
1
each
year
thereafter,
the
commissioner
and
the
state
board
shall
submit
to
the
governor
and
to
the
education
committees
of
the
Senate
and
the
House
of
Representatives,
or
any
successor
committees,
a
report
concerning
the
districts
of
innovation.
At
a
minimum,
the
report
shall
include:
(3)
An
overview
of
the
innovations
implemented
in
the
innovation
schools
and
the
innovation
school
zones
in
Annual report (R.C. 3302.068) By July 1 each year, the Department of Education must issue a report on school districts of innovation. This report must include data on the number of innovation schools and innovation school zones and how many students are served by them. In addition, it must contain (1) an overview of the innovations implemented in districts of innovation, (2) data on student performance, including a comparison of performance before and after a districts designation, and (3) legislative recommendations.
21
the districts of innovation; (4) An overview of the academic performance of the students served in innovation schools and innovation school zones in each district of innovation, including a comparison between the students academic performance before and since implementation of the innovations; (5) Any recommendations for legislative changes based on the innovations implemented or to further enhance the ability of local school boards to implement innovations; and
(6) "Qualified scholarship" means either of the WHEREAS, each child is unique and learns differently, and many children are likely to benefit following: from expanded educational opportunities, including (a) A scholarship granted to an eligible student in grade tutorial assistance, transportation to another public eight or lower not to exceed the lesser of four thousand school, after school programs, or attendance at a two hundred fifty dollars, as adjusted in division nonpublic school; and (A)(6)(c) of this section, or the cost of tuition for the purpose of attendance at a chartered nonpublic school; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the {insert name of (7) "Donation" means an unconditional gift of cash. state legislative body} supports the creation of a tax credit for donations to nonprofit organizations that make more privately funded scholarships and educational assistance available to children. (B) A nonrefundable credit is allowed against the tax levied by section 5707.03 and assessed under section 5725.15, the tax imposed by section 5725.18, the tax imposed by section 5727.24, 5727.30, 5727.81, or 5727.811, the tax assessed under Chapter 5729., or the tax imposed by section 5733.06 or 5747.02 of the Revised Code for a taxpayer that makes an authorized donation to an educational scholarship organization. No credit is allowed if the taxpayer designates a specific child as the beneficiary of the donation. Sec. 5733.01. (A) The tax provided by this chapter for domestic corporations shall be the amount charged against each corporation organized for profit under the laws of this state and each nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 1729. of the Revised Code, except as provided in sections 5733.09 and 5733.10 of the Revised Code, for the privilege of exercising its franchise during the calendar year in which that amount is payable, and the tax provided by this chapter for foreign corporations shall be the amount charged against each corporation organized for profit and each nonprofit corporation organized or operating in the same or similar manner as nonprofit corporations organized under Chapter 1729. of the Revised Code, under the laws of any state or country other than this state, except as provided in sections 5733.09 and 5733.10 of the Revised Code, for the privilege of doing business in this state, owning or using a part or all of its capital or property in this state, holding a certificate of compliance with the laws of this state authorizing it to do business in this state, or otherwise having nexus in or with this state under the Constitution of the United States, during the calendar
23
year in which that amount is payable. (v) The entity will award at least fifty per cent of its new qualified scholarships to students who did not attend chartered nonpublic schools in this state in the preceding school year. For this purpose, a new qualified scholarship is a qualified scholarship first awarded to a student who did not receive a scholarship from an educational scholarship organization for all or part of the preceding school year.
WHEREAS, a credit against taxes for contributions to nonprofit scholarship or educational assistance organizations will make more privately-funded scholarships available, and thereby expand the educational opportunities available to children of families that have limited financial resources and increase the academic achievements of children across the country;
VOTER
ID
ALEC Model Legislation: Voter ID Act Sponsor (in bold) and co-sponsors: 9 ALEC Representatives Rep. Louis Blessing (R-29) Rep. Ronald Maag (R-35) Rep. John P. Adams (R-78) Rep. Joseph W. Uecker (R-66) Rep. Jarrod B. Martin (R-70) Rep. Danny Bubp (R-88) Rep. Marlene Anielski (R-17) Rep. Peter A. Beck (R-67) Rep. Cheryl L. Grossman (R-23) Last Action: 06/23/2011, Reported by Senate State and Local Government and Veterans Affairs Committees th Legislative Session: 129 General Assembly Regular Session 2011-2012 Similarities/Analysis: The two versions of the legislation require voters to provide proof of identification at the polls, outline permissible provisional ballots and make it optional to provide free identification to certain eligible citizens. The Ohio legislation is much more comprehensive than its ALEC counterpart: the Ohio legislation provides a detailed standard of conduct for voters and the county board of elections. Nonetheless, both bills have nearly the same content. The ALEC legislation requires voters to provide photo identification, while the Ohio legislation accepts either photo identification or certain forms of non-photo state identification. Both bills require voters to provide identification in order to cast a provisional ballot, but the Ohio legislation authorizes the use of provisional ballots in more limited circumstances than the ALEC legislation. ALEC Model Legislation: Voter ID Act Ohio Legislation: HB 159 Summary Introduction
24
This legislation requires any United States citizen desiring to vote in a state to provide proof of identity at the polls, outlines permissible provisional ballots, and optionally provides for a free ID to those who do not have a drivers license. A bill to amend sections 3501.01, 3503.14, 3503.15, 3503.16, 3503.19, 3503.24, 3503.28, 3505.18, 3505.181, 3505.182, 3505.183, 3509.03, 3509.031, 3509.04, 3509.05, 3509.08, 3511.02, 3511.05, 3511.09, and 4507.50 of the Revised Code to generally require electors who appear at a polling place to vote or who cast absent voter's ballots in person to provide photo identification, to establish a process for electors to receive free photo identification, to establish a process to permit electors with a religious objection to being photographed to vote, and to revise the information that must accompany a provisional ballot for that ballot to be eligible to be counted. (AA) "Photo identification" means a document that: (1) Contains the name of the elector, which shall conform to the name in the individual's voter registration record; (2) Contains a photograph of the individual to whom it was issued. (3) Contains an expiration date that is not expired or that expired after the date of the most recent general election, unless the document is one of the following: Sec. 3505.18. (A)(1) When an elector appears in a polling place to vote, the elector shall announce to the precinct election officials the elector's full name and current address and provide proof of the elector's identity in the form of a photo identification or a nonphoto state identification card. (2) If an elector does not have or is unable to provide to the precinct election officials any of the forms of identification required under division (A)(1) of this section, the elector may cast a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code and do either of the following: (a) Appear at the office of the board of elections not later than the close of the polls on the day of the election and provide the identification required under division (A)(1) of this section; or (b) Write the elector's social security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number on the provisional ballot envelope, which number shall be verified by the board of elections with the bureau of motor vehicles. (3) If an elector has a religious objection to being
Section 1. (a) Proof of identity means a document or identification card that: (1) Shows the name of the person to whom the document was issued; (2) Shows a photograph of the person to whom the document was issued; (3) Contains an expiration date, and is not expired (4) Is issued by the United States or the State of Arkansas. Section 2. (b) Any person desiring to vote in this state shall present proof of identity to the election official when appearing to vote in person either early or at the polls on Election Day. (c)(1) If the voter is listed on the precinct voter registration list but failed to provide proof of identity, the election official shall: (A) Indicate on the precinct voter registration list that the voter did not provide proof of identity; and (B) Request that the voter execute an affidavit in the presence of the election official containing: (i) A written eligibility affirmation stating that he or she is a registered voter in the precinct in which he or she desires to vote and is eligible to vote; and (ii) A statement that the voter cannot provide proof of identity because the voter: (a) Does not have proof of identity available at the time of voting; (b) Is indigent; or (c) Has a religious objection to being photographed
25
(2) If a voter executes an affidavit under subsection (c)(1)(B) of this section, the election official shall permit the voter to cast a provisional ballot. photographed and the elector does not have a nonphoto state identification card, the elector may execute an affirmation under penalty of election falsification to that effect. Upon signing the affirmation, the elector may cast a provisional ballot under section 3505.181 of the Revised Code. The secretary of state shall prescribe the form of the affirmation, which shall include spaces for all of the following: (a) The elector's name; (b) The elector's address; (c) The current date; (d) The elector's date of birth; (e) The elector's signature.; (f) A statement that the elector has a religious objection to being photographed; and (g) The statement, "A person who knowingly and falsely signs this affirmation may be subject to criminal prosecution for election falsification, a felony, which may subject a violator to a prison term, a monetary fine, and possible loss of voting privileges for repeat violations." Sec. 3505.183. (B)(1) To determine whether a provisional ballot is valid and entitled to be counted, the board shall examine the affirmation executed by the provisional voter, the statewide voter registration database, and other records maintained by the board of elections and determine whether the individual who cast the provisional ballot is registered and eligible to vote in the applicable election. The board shall examine the information contained in the written affirmation executed by the individual who cast the provisional ballot under division (B)(2) of section 3505.181 of the Revised Code. If the provisional voter provided identification at the board of elections prior to the close of the polls under division (A)(2)(a) of section 3505.18 of the Revised Code, the board of elections shall match that voter's provisional ballot envelope with the corresponding voter's identification and consider that provisional voter to have provided the required identification at the polling place at the time the ballot was cast when determining the validity of the provisional ballot. If the provisional voter provided the individual's social security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number on the provisional ballot envelope under division (A)(2)(b) of that section, the board of elections shall verify that voter's social
Section 2. (d) A provisional ballot cast by a voter who did not provide proof of identity shall be counted if: (1)(A) The voter returns to the county board of election commissioners by 12:00 p.m. on the Monday following the election and provides proof of identity. (B) If a voter does not return to the county board of election commissioners and provide proof of identity, the county board of election commissioners shall make a determination whether to count a provisional ballot cast by a voter who did not provide proof of identity based on the merits of each provisional ballot; and (2) The voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason.
26
security number, driver's license number, or state identification card number with records maintained by the bureau of motor vehicles. If those records correspond, the board of elections shall consider that provisional voter to have provided the required identification at the polling place at the time the ballot was cast. (e) An identification card shall be issued without the Sec. 4507.50. payment of a fee or charge to an individual who: (A) The registrar of motor vehicles or a deputy registrar, upon receipt of an application filed in (1) Does not have a valid driver's license; and compliance with section 4507.51 of the Revised Code by any person who is a resident or a temporary (2) Will be at least eighteen (18) years of age at the resident of this state and, except as otherwise provided next general election, special election, or municipal in this section, is not licensed as an operator of a motor election. vehicle in this state or another licensing jurisdiction, and, except as provided in divisions (B) and (C) of this section, upon receipt of a fee of three dollars and fifty cents, shall issue an identification card to that person. Any person who is a resident or temporary resident of this state whose Ohio driver's or commercial driver's license has been suspended or canceled, upon application in compliance with section 4507.51 of the Revised Code and, except as provided in division (B) of this section, payment of a fee of three dollars and fifty cents, may be issued a temporary identification card Except as provided in divisions (B) and (C) of this section, the deputy registrar shall be allowed a fee of two dollars and seventy-five cents commencing on July 1, 2001, three dollars and twenty-five cents commencing on January 1, 2003, and three dollars and fifty cents commencing on January 1, 2004, for each identification card issued under this section. The fee allowed to the deputy registrar shall be in addition to the fee for issuing an identification card. (B) A disabled veteran who has a service-connected disability rated at one hundred per cent by the veterans' administration may apply to the registrar or a deputy registrar for the issuance to that veteran of an identification card or a temporary identification card under this section without payment of any fee prescribed in division (A) of this section, including any lamination fee. An application made under division (B) of this section shall be accompanied by such documentary evidence of disability as the registrar may require by rule. (C) Not more frequently than once every four years, an individual who does not have photo identification may apply to the registrar or a deputy registrar for the issuance to that individual of an identification card or a
27
temporary identification card under this section without payment of any fee. The registrar shall issue photo identification to such an individual without payment of any fee described in division (A) of this section. (D) The bureau of motor vehicles shall promulgate rules permitting an individual with a religious objection to being photographed to receive a state identification card issued without a photograph under this section. Rules issued under this section shall permit nonphoto state identification cards to be issued for use as identification under Title XXXV of the Revised Code sufficiently in advance of the February 7, 2012, special election to allow those identification cards to be used as identification for individuals casting a ballot at that election. (E) The bureau of motor vehicles shall promulgate rules to allow developmentally disabled individuals to apply for, and receive, state identification cards onsite at the county boards of developmental disabilities at regular intervals.
IMMIGRATION
OHIO
LEGISLATION:
H.B.
286
ALEC
Model
Legislation:
Fair
and
Legal
Employment
Act,
No
Sanctuary
For
Illegal
Immigrants
Act
Sponsors
(in
bold)
and
co-sponsors:
11
ALEC
Representatives
Rep.
Courtney
E.
Combs
(R-
54)
Rep.
Margaret
Ann
Ruhl
(R-
90)
Rep.
Danny
R.
Deb
(R-
88)
Rep.
Timothy
Derickson
(R-
53)
Rep.
Andy
Thompson
(R-
93)
Rep.
Jeffrey
A.
McClain
(R-
82)
Rep.
John
Adams
(R-78)
Rep.
Ronald
Maag
(R-35)
Rep.
Andrew
Brenner
(R-2)
Rep.
Ronald
E.
Young
(R-
31)
Rep.
Jarrod
B.
Martin
(R-
70)
Last
Action:
Introduced
on
06/29/2011,
Held
in
Committees
th Legislative
Session:
129
General
Assembly
Regular
Session
2011-2012
Similarities/Analysis:
H.B.
286
was
taken
nearly
word
for
word
from
ALECs
Fair
and
Legal
Employment
Act,
which
is
also
incorporated
in
ALECs
longer
and
more
thorough
No
Sanctuary
for
Illegal
Immigrants
Act
the
infamous
model
legislation
that
was
introduced
in
Arizona
as
SB
1070
and
led
to
protests
across
the
country.
28
H.B. 286, if adopted, would require employers to register their employees under the E-Verify system. E-Verify legislation 60 was enacted in 12 states in 2011, but the program is plagued with structural flaws. Government audits estimate that if the program were adopted nationally, some 770,000 Americans would incorrectly lose their jobs due to name duplications and 61 database inconsistencies. During the Clinton Administration, a predecessor to this system was called 1-800-Big-Brother by Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH). Even if the system were 99% accurate, it would still require employers to deny a job to a person they may have known for years until the employee can prove that they really are who they say they are. Even if the program functioned correctly, critics assert that employer sanctions would drive the hiring of undocumented workers further underground into the black market economy, where collective bargaining, worker rights and fair wages fall 62 victim to exploitive forces. ALEC: Fair and Legal Employment Act, No Sanctuary Ohio: H.B. 286 (as introduced) For Illegal Immigrants Act Section 4. { Definitions.} Sec. 4113.81. As used in sections 4113.81 to 4113.88 of the Revised Code: (C) "E-verify program" means the employment (A) "E-verify program" means the employment verification pilot program as jointly administered by verification pilot program as jointly administered by the United States department of homeland security the United States department of homeland security and the social security administration or any of its and the social security administration or any of its successor programs. successor programs. (B) "Knowingly employ an unauthorized alien" means the actions described in the "Immigration Reform and (E) "Knowingly employ an unauthorized alien" means Control Act of 1986," 100 Stat. 3360, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. the actions described in 8 United States Code section This term shall be interpreted consistently with the 1324a. This term shall be interpreted consistently "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986," 100 with United States Code section 1324a and any Stat. 3360, 8 U.S.C. 1324a and any applicable federal applicable federal rules and regulations. rules and regulations. (F) "License": (C)(1) "License" means any agency permit, certificate, (1) Means any agency permit, certificate, approval, approval, registration, charter, or similar form of registration, charter or similar form of authorization authorization that is required by law and that is issued that is required by law and that is issued by any by any agency for the purposes of operating a business agency for the purposes of operating a business in in this state. this state. (D) "Unauthorized alien" means an alien who does not (H) "Unauthorized alien" means an alien who does have the legal right or authorization under federal law not have the legal right or authorization under to work in the United States as described in the federal law to work in the United States as described "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986," 100 in 8 United States Code section 1324a(h)(3). Stat. 3360, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. Section 5. {Knowingly Employing Unauthorized Aliens; Sec. 4113.82. Prohibition; False and Frivolous Complaints; Violation; Classification; License Suspension and Revocation; (A)(1) No employer shall knowingly employ an Affirmative Defense.} unauthorized alien. (A) An employer shall not knowingly employ an (2) No employer purposefully shall employ an
29
unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection. unauthorized alien. (3) No individual knowingly shall file a false and frivolous complaint under section 4113.83 of the Revised Code. (B) Every employer, after hiring an employee, shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify program. (C) For purposes of division (A)(1) of this section, an employer violates that division if the employer uses a contract, subcontract, or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state and the employer knowingly contracts with an alien the employer knows is an unauthorized alien or with a person whom the employer knows employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor. (B) Sec. 4113.83. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person to allege a violation of subsection A. of for a person to allege a violation of division (A)(1) or this section. The complainant shall not be required to (2) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code. The list the complainant's social security number on the attorney general shall not require the complainant to complaint form or to have the complaint form list the complainant's social security number on the notarized. On receipt of a complaint on a prescribed complaint form or to have the complaint form complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly notarized. A complainant shall submit the complaint to employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general the attorney general or to the prosecuting attorney of or county attorney shall investigate whether the the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is employer has violated subsection A of this section. If or was employed by the employer. On receipt of a a complaint is received but is not submitted on a complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or employer allegedly knowingly or purposefully employs county attorney may investigate whether the an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or employer has violated subsection A of this section. prosecuting attorney shall investigate whether the This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the employer has violated division (A)(1) or (2) of section filing of anonymous complaints that are not 4113.82 of the Revised Code, as alleged in the submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The complaint. Nothing in this section shall be construed attorney general or county attorney shall not to prohibit an individual from filing an anonymous investigate complaints that are based solely on race, complaint on a form other than the prescribed color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted complaint form. If the attorney general or a to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county prosecuting attorney receives a complaint that is not attorney in the county in which the alleged submitted on a prescribed complaint form, the unauthorized alien is or was employed by the attorney general or prosecuting attorney may, but is employer. not required to, investigate whether the employer has violated division (A)(1) or (2) of section 4113.82 of the The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement Revised Code as alleged in the complaint. The attorney agency may assist in investigating a complaint. When general or prosecuting attorney shall not investigate investigating a complaint, the attorney general or complaints that are based solely on race, color, or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of national origin. the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal
30
government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement officer may assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or prosecuting attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to the federal "Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997," 110 Stat. 3009, 8 U.S.C. 1373(c), as amended. An officer or employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States. (C) If, after an investigation, the attorney general or Sec. 4113.84. (A) If, after an investigation conducted county attorney determines that the complaint is not under section 4113.83 of the Revised Code, the false and frivolous: attorney general or prosecuting attorney determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous, the (1) The attorney general or county attorney shall attorney general or prosecuting attorney shall do all of notify the United States immigration and customs the following, as applicable: enforcement of the unauthorized alien. (1) Notify the United States department of homeland (2) The attorney general or county attorney shall security or its successor agency regarding the status of notify the local law enforcement agency of the the unauthorized alien; unauthorized alien. (2) Notify the local law enforcement agency regarding (3) The attorney general shall notify the appropriate the status of the unauthorized alien; county attorney to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint was (3) If the complaint was originally filed with the originally filed with the attorney general. attorney general, notify the appropriate prosecuting attorney to allow the prosecuting attorney to bring an (D) An action for a violation of subsection A of this action pursuant to division (B) of this section. section shall be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the (B) If a prosecuting attorney of the county where an unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by unauthorized alien employee allegedly is or was the employer. The county attorney shall not employed by an employer conducts an investigation bring an action against any employer for any violation under section 4113.83 of the Revised Code and of subsection A of this section that occurs before determines that reasonable evidence exists that the [Insert Date]. A second violation of this section shall employer violated division (A)(1) or (2) of section be based only on an unauthorized alien who is or was 4113.82 of the Revised Code, or if that prosecuting employed by the employer after an action has been attorney receives a notice under division (A)(3) of this brought for a violation of subsection A or state law. section, the prosecuting attorney shall bring an action for a violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section (E) For any action in superior court under this section, 4113.82 of the Revised Code against the employer in the court shall expedite the action, including the court of common pleas of the county where the assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date. unauthorized alien employee allegedly is or was employed by the employer. The prosecuting attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code that occurred prior to the effective date of this section. A second violation of this section shall be based only on any additional unauthorized aliens employed by the employer after a previous
31
action has been brought against an employer for a violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code. (C) For any action brought pursuant to this section, the court shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest practicable date. Sec. 4113.85. (A) In an action brought pursuant to section 4113.84 of the Revised Code, for purposes of determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, a court shall consider only a determination with respect to that alien's immigration status made by the federal government pursuant to the federal "Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997," 110 Stat. 3009, 8 U.S.C. 1373(c), as amended. The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the alien's lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to the federal "Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997," 110 Stat. 3009, 8 U.S.C. 1373(c), as amended. (B) For purposes of section 4113.84 of the Revised Code, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly or purposefully employ an unauthorized alien. (C) For purposes of section 4113.84 of the Revised Code, an employer who establishes that the employer has complied in good faith with the requirements of the federal "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986," 100 Stat. 3360, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), as amended, establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly or purposefully employ an unauthorized alien in violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code. An employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of the federal "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986," 100 Stat. 3360, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), as amended, notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic, or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if a good faith attempt was made to comply with the requirements of that act.
(H) On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). (I) For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. (J) For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States code section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. an employer is considered to have complied with the requirements of 8 United States code section 1324a(b), notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply with the requirements.
32
Sec. 4113.86. (A)(1) If a court, pursuant to an action brought under section 4113.84 of the Revised Code, determines that an employer has committed a first violation of division (A)(1) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code, the court shall do all of the following: (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens; (b) Order the employer to be subject to a three-year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work;
Section
5.
(F) On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:1) For a first violation, as described in subsection 3 of this section, the court: (1)(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens. (1)(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 3 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. (1)(c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate
(c) Order the employer to file a signed affidavit of the type described in division (A)(4) of this section with the prosecuting attorney of the county where the violation occurred within three business days after the order is issued. (2) If a court pursuant to an action brought under section 4113.84 of the Revised Code determines that an employer has committed a first violation of division (A)(1) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code, the court may order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in division (A)(4) of this section that are held by the employer for a period not to exceed ten business days. The court shall determine whether to suspend an employer's licenses based upon any evidence or information submitted to the court during the action and shall consider any of the following factors, as applicable: (a) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer; (b) Any prior misconduct committed by the employer; (c) The degree of harm resulting from the violation; (d) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements; (e) The duration of the violation; 33
agencies
shall
suspend
the
licenses
according
to
the
court's
order.
The
court
shall
send
a
copy
of
the
court's
order
to
the
attorney
general
and
the
attorney
general
shall
maintain
the
copy
pursuant
to
subsection
G
of
this
section.
(1)(d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the following factors, if relevant: (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer. (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer. (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation. (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any applicable requirements. (v) The duration of the violation. (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer in the violation. (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
(f) The role of the directors, officers, or principals of the employer in the violation; (g) Any other factors the court considers appropriate. (3) During the probationary period described in division (A)(1)(b) of this section, the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 3121.892 of the Revised Code with the prosecuting attorney of the county where the violation occurred documenting each new employee who is hired by the employer after the date the court determined the employer violated division (A)(1) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code and who is employed at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. (4) The affidavit described in division (A)(1)(c) of this section shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all unauthorized aliens employed by the employer in this state and that the employer will not purposefully or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. If the employer fails to file the affidavit with the prosecuting attorney within three business days after the date the order is issued, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described in this division held by the employer. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney general, and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to section 4113.88 of the Revised Code. For the purposes of division (A)(4) of this section, a license subject to suspension is any license held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, any license held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business is subject to suspension. A license remains suspended until the employer files the affidavit required under division (A)(1)(c) of this section with the prosecuting attorney. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the appropriate agency shall reinstate the suspended license upon the employer's filing of the affidavit with the prosecuting attorney. 34
(B) For a second violation of division (A)(1) of section 4113.82 of the Revised Code, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses. (C) A violation is considered a first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under this section or section 4113.87 of the Revised Code for that employer's business location. A violation is considered a second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under this section or section 4113.87 of the Revised Code for that employer's business location.
(2) For a second violation, as described in subsection 3 of this section, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. The employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses. (3) The violation shall be considered: (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court under state law for that employer's business location. (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under state law for that employer's business location.
LABOR
OHIO
LEGISLATION:
S.B.
5
ALEC
Model
Legislation:
Public
Employee
Bargaining
Transparency
Act,
Prohibition
of
Negative
Check-off
Act,
Political
Funding
Reform
Act,
Public
Employee
Freedom
Act
Sponsors
(in
bold)
and
co-sponsors:
1
ALEC
Senator
Sen.
Shannon
Jones
(R-
7)
Last
Action:
Repealed
by
referendum
on
November
8 ,
2011
Issue
2
th Legislative
Session:
129
General
Assembly
Regular
Session
2011-2012
Analysis:
When
ALEC
Senator
Shannon
Jones
(R-
7)
introduced
Senate
Bill
5,
she
was
and
would
remain
the
sole
sponsor.
Although
S.B.
5
would
eventually
pass
in
both
the
State
House
and
Senate,
the
aims
of
the
bill
were
so
controversial
that
no
other
35
th
politician
wished
to
have
his
or
her
name
on
the
bills
header.
Even
the
bills
path
to
passage
was
tenuous;
when
held
up
in
two
Senate
committees
lacking
the
necessary
votes
to
advance,
the
Republican
leadership
simply
replaced
committee
64 members
to
achieve
their
desired
outcome.
65 Among
other
objectives,
S.B.
5
would
have
severely
restricted
the
collective
bargaining
rights
of
350,000
public
workers.
From
school
teachers
to
firefighters,
the
bill
targeted
a
wide
range
of
professionals
and
was
a
blatant
assault
on
the
middle
class.
Its
passage
immediately
catalyzed
a
grassroots
movement
to
repeal
the
bill.
Setting
a
record
for
Ohio
ballot
initiatives,
th 66 activists
collected
nearly
1.3
million
signatures
to
place
Issue
2
on
the
November
8
ballot
and
after
a
fierce
battle,
they
successfully
repealed
the
law.
Similarities:
Sec.
4117.21
is
based
on
the
ALEC
Public
Employee
Bargaining
Transparency
Act,
which
demands
that
collective
bargaining
meetings
be
made
public
upon
the
request
of
the
employer.
By
opening
this
dialogue
to
the
public,
workers
are
subject
to
external
pressures
and
are
less
likely
to
be
able
to
reach
meaningful
compromises.
Sec.
9.81
is
based
on
ALECs
model
bill,
Prohibition
of
Negative
Check
Act,
which
bars
public
unions
from
collecting
dues
via
payroll
deductions
without
written
consent
from
employees.
This
proposal
weakens
worker
rights
by
adding
a
bureaucratic
layer
to
unionization.
Sec.
4117.09
is
based
on
ALECs
model
bill,
Political
Funding
Reform
Act
and
the
Right
to
Work
Act,
which,
together,
prohibit
public
employers
from
signing
contracts
that
require
unionization
or
fair-share
fees,
and
forbid
public
union
funds
from
being
used
for
political
purposes,
although
members
may
engage
in
standard
PAC
procedure
as
defined
by
3517.082,
3517.09,
and
3599.031
of
the
Revised
Code.
Sec.
4117.15
is
based
on
Section
6
and
Section
8
of
ALECs
model
bill,
Public
Employee
Freedom
Act,
which
prohibits
public
workers
from
engaging
in
strikes.
If
an
employee
violates
this
decree,
he
or
she
is
subject
to
punishment
by
law
enforcement
authorities
for
misconduct.
ALEC:
Public
Employee
Bargaining
Transparency
Act
OHIO:
S.B.
5
(as
enrolled)
Section
4.
{Open
Meetings}
Sec.
4117.21.
A.
Collective
bargaining
sessions
between
a
public
Collective
bargaining
meetings
between
public
employer
or
its
agent
and
a
labor
organization
or
its
employers
and
employee
organizations
are
private,
and
agent
pursuant
to
[INSERT
COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING
are
not
subject
to
section
121.22
of
the
Revised
Code,
STATUTES]
are
public
meetings
subject
to
the
provisions
except
fact-finding
hearings
held
pursuant
to
section
of
[INSERT
STATE
OPEN
MEETINGS
ACT],
as
now
or
4117.14
of
the
Revised
Code
may
be
open
to
the
public
hereafter
amended
if
either
the
public
employer
or
the
exclusive
representative
requests
the
hearing
be
open.
ALEC:
Prohibition
of
Negative
Check-off
Act
OHIO:
S.B.
5
(as
enrolled)
Section
1.
{Short
Title.}
This
Act
shall
be
known
as
the
Sec.
9.81.
After
an
authorization
adopted
under
section
Prohibition
of
Negative
Check-Off
Act.
9.80
of
the
Revised
Code,
any
public
officer
or
employee
of
any
department
or
division
of
the
state,
Section
2.
{Legislative
Declaration.}
any
political
subdivision
or
school
district
thereof,
or
of
any
institution
supported
in
whole
or
in
part
by
the
Section
3.
{Definitions.}
state,
a
county,
or
municipal
corporation,
who
desires
to
make
a
contribution
by
the
payroll
deduction
plan
to
(A)
"negative
check-off
plan"
means
a
plan
whereby
a
one
or
more
of
the
specified
charitable
agencies
which
payer,
by
his
or
her
inaction
is
deemed
to
have
agreed
are
corporations
not
for
profit,
community
chests,
63
36
to a payment or series of payments. (B) "voluntary" means an action or choice given freely, as evidenced by some affirmative act on the part of the payer. A charitable contribution made by a payer pursuant to authorization given by such payer is deemed to be voluntary. Section 4. {Negative check-off plans prohibited.} (A) It shall be a deceptive trade practice to, in the course of one's business, vocation, or occupation, receive funds from an individual whereby such funds are not given on a voluntary basis, unless such an arrangement is required pursuant to a court order. Such involuntary payments are void as against public policy. A payment made pursuant to a negative check-off plan shall not be considered to have been made on a voluntary basis. (B) Nothing in any other state law shall affect the validity or application of this section as it applies to any employee, including, but not limited to, persons employed by the state or a local government or any governmental subdivision or agency thereof, without exception. Section 5. {Severability Clause.} Section 6. {Repealer Clause.} Section 7. {Effective Date.} ALEC: Right to Work Act Sec. 4 No person shall be required, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment: (C) to pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount to a labor united funds, or other similar united community fund organizations, may be permitted to have such contribution payments deducted from the salary or wages due such public officer or employee by filing a written request and authorization signed by such public officer or employee and specifying the amount of the deduction in each payroll period with the fiscal officer of the state, political subdivision, or school district, or institution by which such public officer or employee is employed. Such authorization may be withdrawn in writing by such public officer or employee at any time. No funds may be withheld from the salary or wages of any such public officer or employee for the purposes permitted by sections 9.80 and 9.81 of the Revised Code unless the withholding is specifically, freely, and voluntarily authorized by that public officer or employee in writing. Upon receipt of evidence of such request by the appropriate fiscal officer, or upon receipt of a written deduction authorization under division (B)(2) or (C) of section 4117.09 of the Revised Code, such fiscal officer shall make such deduction and shall, at periodic intervals to the extent of the amount collected, pay the designated charitable agencies which are corporations not for profit, community chests, united funds, or other similar united community fund organizations, or the exclusive representative designated under section 4117.05 of the Revised Code.
Sec. 4117.09. (C) The No agreement may contain a provision that requires as a condition of employment, on or after a mutually agreed upon probationary period or sixty days following the beginning of employment, whichever is less, or the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement, whichever is later, that the employees in the unit who are not members of the employee organization pay to the employee organization a fair share fee.
ALEC:
Political
Funding
Reform
Act
Section
4.
{Prohibitions}
A
public
employer
is
prohibited
from
collecting
or
deducting
or
transmitting
political
funds
within
the
meaning
of
this
section.
OHIO:
S.B.
5
(as
enrolled)
Sec.
4117.09.
(A)
The
parties
to
any
collective
bargaining
agreement
shall
reduce
the
agreement
to
writing
and
both
execute
it.
37
Section 5. {Penalties} A. For a period of two years, no public employer shall collect, deduct, or assist in the collection or deduction of funds for any purpose for a person or organization if, in violation of this article, the person or organization has: 1. used as political funds, as defined in section 3(A) or (B), any of the funds collected or deducted for it by any public employer, or 2. commingled funds collected or deducted by any public employer with political funds. 3. whenever funds for multiple levels of an organization (local, regional, state, and/or national) are deducted, collected, and/or transmitted to a single recipient for all affiliates that receive funds from the recipient organization. B. Any employee whose wages have been deducted in violation of the provisions of this article may bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain injunctive relief against the violator or person or public employer threatening violation. If the state enjoys sovereign immunity, nothing in this section shall be considered or otherwise construed to waive, or in any way abrogate such immunity. An employee whose wages have ( No public employer shall agree to a provision requiring that a public employee become a member of an employee organization as a condition for securing or retaining employment. Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable. No public
employer shall agree to a provision that provides for the payroll deduction for any contributions to a
political action committee using any other method than the method prescribed in sections 3517.082, 3517.09, and 3599.031 of the Revised Code.
been
deducted
in
violation
of
this
article
may
bring
suit
in
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
recover
damages
equal
to:
1.
from
a
public
employer
violating
the
provisions
of
this
article,
or
failing
to
take
appropriate
action
when
informed
of
the
violation,
any
amounts
actually
deducted
from
the
public
employee's
wages;
and
2.
from
any
individual
or
organization
acting
separately
or
in
league
with
a
public
employer
to
violate
the
provisions
of
this
article,
twice
any
amounts
actually
received
by
said
individual
or
organization
from
the
injured
public
employee
3.
The
remedies
in
i.
and
ii.
above
shall
not
preempt
any
other
causes
of
action
and
damage
awards
which
may
be
available
to
public
employees
injured
as
a
result
of
violations
of
this
act.
38
C.
In
any
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
intended
to
enforce
of
this
article
the
court
may
award
reasonable
attorneys'
fees
as
part
of
the
court
costs.
ALEC: Public Employee Freedom Act Section 6. {Agreements in violation, and actions to induce such agreements, declared illegal.} Any agreement, understanding, or practice, written or oral, implied or expressed, between any employee organization and public employer that violates the rights of employees as guaranteed by provisions of this chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void, and of no legal effect. Any strike, picketing, boycott, or other action by an employee organization for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce an employer to enter into any agreement prohibited by this chapter is hereby declared to be for an illegal purpose and is a violation of the provisions of this chapter. Section 8. {Penalties.} Any person who directly or indirectly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to a fine not exceeding(insert amount) or imprisonment for a period of not more than (insert time period), or both such fine or imprisonment.
OHIO: S.B. 5 (as enrolled) Sec. 4117.15. (A) No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike. Whenever a strike occurs, the public employer may seek an injunction against the strike in the court of common pleas of the county in which the strike is located. (B) Any person who violates division (A) of this section may be subject to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct. The public employer, the state employment relations board, or any court of competent jurisdiction shall not waive the penalties or fines provided in this section as part of the settlement of an illegal strike. (C) A public employee who is absent from work without permission or who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of the employee's duties in the employee's normal manner without permission, on the date when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in the strike on that date. (D) No person exercising on behalf of any public employer any authority, supervision, or direction over any public employee shall have the power to authorize, approve, condone, or consent to a strike, or the engaging in a strike, by one or more public employees, and such person shall not authorize, approve, condone or consent to such strike or engagement.
Last
Action:
Introduced
on
02/23/2011,
Held
in
Committees
th Legislative
Session:
129
General
Assembly
Regular
Session
2011-2012
Similarities/Analysis:
With
striking
similarity,
the
Open
Contracting
Act
and
S.B.
89
aim
to
undercut
unionization
by
precluding
states
from
requiring
contractors
they
do
business
with
to
be
represented
by
unions.
Such
legislation,
which
undermines
collective
bargaining
rights,
has
been
documented
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
workers
in
terms
of
pension
67 benefits,
health
insurance
coverage
and
wages.
ALEC:
Open
Contracting
Act
Ohio:
S.B.
89
Section
3.
{Prohibited
activities.}
The
State
and
political
Sec.
4116.02.
A
state
agency,
when
engaged
in
subdivisions,
agencies
and
instrumentalities
thereof,
procuring
products
or
services,
awarding
contracts,
or
when
engaged
in
procuring
products
or
services
or
overseeing
procurement
or
construction
for
public
letting
contracts
for
manufacture
of
public
works,
or
improvements,
shall
ensure
that
bid
specifications
overseeing
such
procurement,
construction
or
issued
by
the
state
agency
for
the
proposed
public
manufacture,
shall
ensure
that
bid
specifications,
improvement,
and
any
subsequent
contract
or
other
project
agreements
and
other
controlling
documents,
agreement
for
the
public
improvement
to
which
the
entered
into,
required
or
subject
to
approval
by
the
state
agency
and
a
contractor
or
subcontractor
are
subdivision,
agency
or
instrumentality,
do
not:
direct
parties,
do
not
require
or
prohibit
that
a
contractor
or
subcontractor
do
any
of
the
following:
(A)
Require
bidders,
offerors,
contractors
or
(A)
Enter
into
agreements
with
any
labor
organization
subcontractors
to
enter
into
or
adhere
to
agreements
on
the
public
improvement;
with
one
or
more
labor
organizations
on
the
same
or
related
projects;
(B)
Enter
into
any
agreement
that
requires
the
employees
of
that
contractor
or
subcontractor
to
do
either
of
the
following
as
a
condition
of
employment
or
continued
employment:
(C)
require
any
bidder,
offeror,
contractor
or
subcontractor
to
enter
into,
adhere
to
or
(1)
Become
members
of
or
affiliated
with
a
labor
enforce
any
agreement
that
requires
its
employees
as
a
organization;
condition
of
employment
to:
(2)
Pay
dues
or
fees
to
a
labor
organization.
(1)
become
members
of
or
become
affiliated
with
a
labor
organization;
or
(2)
pay
dues
or
fees
to
a
labor
organization,
over
an
employee's
objection,
in
excess
of
the
employee's
share
of
labor
organization
costs
relating
to
collective
bargaining,
contract
administration
or
grievance
adjustment.
(B) discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors or subcontractors for refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations on the same or related construction projects; or
Sec. 4116.03. (A) No state agency shall do any of the following: (2) Discriminate against any bidder, contractor, or
40
subcontractor for refusing to become a party to any agreement with any labor organization on the public improvement that currently is under bid or on projects related to that improvement; (4) Issue grants or enter into cooperative agreements for construction that have as a condition of the grant or agreement that bid specifications, project agreements, or other documents related to the grant or cooperative agreement contain either of the items described in division (A) or (B) of section 4116.02 of the Revised Code; (5) Discriminate against any grant recipient or party to a cooperative agreement for construction for refusing to become a party to any agreement with any labor organization on the grant project or cooperative agreement construction project. (B) Within the authority granted to a state agency by the Revised Code, the state agency shall prevent a grant recipient or a party to a cooperative agreement from behaving inconsistently with division (A)(2) of this section.
Section 4. {Grants and cooperative agreements. (A) General rule. The State and political subdivisions and any agencies or instrumentalities thereof shall not issue grants or enter into cooperative agreements for construction projects a condition of which requires that bid specifications, project agreements or other controlling documents pertaining to the grant or cooperative agreement contain any of the elements specified in Section 3 Section 3 (B) discriminate against bidders, offerors, contractors or subcontractors for refusing to become or remain signatories or otherwise adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations on the same or related construction projects;
Section 4 (b) (B) The State and political subdivisions or any agencies or instrumentalities thereof shall exercise such authority as may be required to preclude a grant recipient or party to a cooperative agreement from imposing any of the elements specified in Section 3 in connection with any grant or cooperative agreement awarded or entered into.
(C) No state funds shall be appropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement, if any political subdivision of the state, in procuring products or services, awarding contracts, or overseeing procurement or construction for public improvements, requires a contractor or subcontractor to enter into, or prohibits a contractor or subcontractor from entering into, an agreement described in divisions (A) or (B) of section 4116.02 of the Revised Code.
CONSUMER
RIGHTS
41
ALEC Model Legislation: Offer of Settlement Act Sponsors (in bold) and co-sponsors: 6 ALEC Representatives Rep. Ronald E. Young (R- 63) Rep. Robert D. Hackett (R- 86) Rep. Danny Bubp (R- 88) Rep. Andy Thompson (R- 93) Rep. Courtney E. Combs (R- 54) Rep John Adams (R- 78) Last Action: Held in Committees as of 12/14/11 th Legislative Session: 129 General Assembly Regular Session 2011-2012 Similarities/Analysis: H.B. 275 and ALECs Offer of Settlement Act are similar, but Ohios bill actually goes further in its effort to tilt the legal system in favor of wealthy interests. Both bills share the same objective to make it more difficult for consumers who have been injured or otherwise wronged by a corporation to get their day in court. Both the ALEC bill and H.B. 275 invite corporations to give low-range pre-trial offers to consumers bringing a lawsuit and create mechanisms to pressure the consumer into accepting the offer. If the consumer rejects the offer and succeeds in court but the final settlement is not significantly greater than the original offer, the consumer is effectively punished by receiving lower damages and attorneys fees than the jury believed to be just (as in the Ohio bill), or by having to pay the defendants attorney fees (as in the ALEC bill). The bills shifts the risk of proceeding to trial onto consumers, placing them in the difficult situation of deciding whether to accept an unsatisfactory offer for fear that rejecting it may put them in a worse situation. ALEC: Offer of Settlement Act Ohio: H.B. 275 (as passed by House) Section 2. {Offer of settlement procedure.} Sec. 1345.092. At any time more than 20 days after the service of a (A) Not later than thirty days after service of process is summons and complaint on a party but not less than completed upon a supplier by a consumer in any action 30 days (or 20 days if it is a counter offer) before trial, seeking a private remedy pursuant to section 1345.09 either party may serve upon the other party, but shall of the Revised Code, the supplier may deliver a cure offer to the consumer, or if the consumer is not file with the court, a written offer denominated represented by an attorney, to the consumer's as an offer under this rule, to settle a claim for the attorney. The supplier shall send a cure offer by money, property, or relief specified in the offer and to enter into an agreement dismissing the claim or to certified mail, return receipt requested, to the consumer, or if the consumer is represented by an allow judgment to be entered accordingly attorney, to the consumer's attorney. The supplier shall file a copy of the cure offer with the court in which the action was commenced. The offer shall remain open for 30 days unless sooner (B) A consumer shall have thirty days after the date the withdrawn by a writing served on the offeree prior to consumer or the consumer's attorney receives a cure acceptance by the offeree. Acceptance or rejection of offer from a supplier to notify the supplier, or if the the offer by the offeree must be in writing and served supplier is represented by an attorney, the supplier's upon the offeror. An offer that is neither withdrawn attorney, of the consumer's acceptance or rejection of nor accepted within 30 days shall be deemed the cure offer. The consumer shall file the notice of rejected acceptance or rejection with the court in which the action was commenced and serve the notice to the 42
supplier. The notice shall be deemed effective when it is filed with the court. The failure of a consumer to file a notice of acceptance or rejection of the supplier's cure offer within thirty days after the date of receipt of the cure offer shall be deemed a rejection of the cure offer by the consumer. (C) When by rule, notice, or order of court a motion or pleading is required to be filed by any party during the time periods described in divisions (A) and (B) of this section, the court may extend the time period for filing the motion or pleading to allow both parties adequate time to comply with this section. (D) A cure offer shall include both of the following: (1) Language that clearly explains the resolution being offered by the supplier consisting of the following separate components: (a) A supplier's remedy that consists solely of monetary compensation to resolve alleged violations of this chapter; (b) Reasonable attorney's fees that consist of legal fees necessary or reasonably related to the filing of the initial complaint, not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars; (c) Court costs incurred by the consumer that are related to the filing of the initial complaint. (2) A prominent notice that clearly and conspicuously contains the following disclosure in substantially the following form: (E) If the consumer files a notice rejecting the cure offer provided by the supplier, if a cure offer is deemed rejected pursuant to division (B) of this section, or if no cure offer is made to the consumer by the supplier within the time frame set forth in this section, the consumer may proceed with a civil action in accordance with this chapter. (F) If the consumer files a notice accepting a cure offer, the agreed upon resolution shall be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with court supervision. The court may at any time, in its discretion, extend any deadlines set forth by rule, statute, or order of the court for filing motions or pleadings, or conducting discovery in order to allow the resolution to be completed. (G) If a judge, jury, or arbitrator awards actual economic damages as defined in section 1345.09 of the Revised Code that are less than the value of a supplier's
The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer
When the complaint sets forth a claim for money, if the offeree rejects the offer and the judgment finally obtained by the offeree was not at least 10 percent
43
more favorable than the last offer, the offeree shall pay the offerors's reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs incurred after the rejection of the last offer. When the complaint sets forth a claim for property or other nonmonetary relief, if the offeree rejects the offer and the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the last offer, the offeree shall pay the offeror's reasonable costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred after rejection of the last offer remedy included in a cure offer made pursuant to this section, the consumer shall not be entitled to any of the following: (1) An award of treble damages; (2) Any court costs incurred by the consumer after the date the consumer or the consumer's attorney receives the cure offer; (3) Any attorney's fees incurred by the consumer after the date the consumer or the consumer's attorney receives the cure offer from the supplier. The comparison of actual economic damages and the supplier's remedy shall not take into consideration statutory treble damages, court costs, or attorney's fees. (H) A cure offer is not admissible as evidence in a jury trial of the consumer's action seeking a private remedy pursuant to section 1345.09 of the Revised Code as described in division (A) of this section. After a jury renders its verdict in that action or if the action is tried to a judge, the judge may consider the cure offer only if the offer was timely delivered in accordance with this section and only for the limited purpose of determining whether treble damages may be awarded and the amount of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees that may be awarded. A cure offer is not admissible in a court proceeding for any other purpose. Sec. 1345.09. (B) Where the violation was an act or practice declared to be deceptive or unconscionable by rule adopted under division (B)(2) of section 1345.05 of the Revised Code before the consumer transaction on which the action is based, or an act or practice determined by a court of this state to violate section 1345.02, 1345.03, or 1345.031 of the Revised Code and committed after the decision containing the determination has been made available for public inspection under division (A)(3) of section 1345.05 of the Revised Code, the consumer may rescind the transaction or recover, but not in a class action, three times the amount of the consumer's actual economic damages or two hundred dollars, whichever is greater, plus an amount not exceeding five thousand dollars in noneconomic damages or recover damages or other appropriate relief in a class action under Civil Rule 23, as amended.
Evidence of an offer is not admissible except in proceedings to enforce a settlement or to determine sanctions under this rule.
HEALTHCARE
44
rights protected under this section. (Adopted 12-9-11; Proposed by Initiative Petition)
PRISON
PRIVATIZATION
46
recused himself from the bidding process for the Lake Erie complex, Ohio lobbying records show that Mohr indeed met 72 with CCA officials while in office. Similarities: This side-by-side comparison demonstrates a common interest between ALEC and certain Ohio legislators in expanding prison privatization towards selling off public assets directly to private corporations. Although private corporations had been contracted to operate correctional facilities before the enactment of HB 153, the sale provision that allowed those companies to purchase state facilities was unprecedented for Ohio; and has been part of ALECs agenda since 7374757677 as early as 1995. Considering the close relationships between the ALEC officials who lead this effort and the boldness of the sale proposals, the ALEC footprint in this legislation is clear. ALEC: Private Correctional Facilities Act Ohio: HB 153 (as enrolled) Section 3. {Authority to contract.) Sec. 9.06. (A) The state or a local government may contract with (J) If, on or after the effective date of this amendment, private entities for the construction, lease (as lesser or a contractor enters into a contract with the department lessee), acquisition, improvement, operation, of rehabilitation and correction under this section for maintenance, purchase, or management of facilities the operation and management of any facility described and services as provided in this Act, only with prior in Section 753.10 of the act in which this amendment approval from the legislature, with the governor acting was adopted, if the contract provides for the sale of the as the chief executive, as to the site, number of beds, facility to the contractor, if the facility is sold to the and classifications of inmates or prisoners to be housed contractor subsequent to the execution of the contract, in the facility. and if the contractor is privately operating and managing the facility, notwithstanding the contractor's private operation and management of the facility, all of the following apply: (C) After receiving the majority consent of the five state Sec. 9.06. elected officials as to the site, number of beds, and classifications of inmates or prisoners to be housed in (A)(1) The department of rehabilitation and correction the facility, the state or local government may contract may contract for the private operation and with private entities for the construction, lease (as management pursuant to this section of the initial lesser or lessee), acquisition, improvement, operation, intensive program prison established pursuant to maintenance, purchase, or management of facilities, section 5120.033 of the Revised Code, if one or more either: intensive program prisons are established under that section, and may contract for the private operation and (1) for the incarceration of its own inmates or prisoners; management of any other facility under this section. Counties and municipal corporations to the extent (2) for the incarceration of prisoners or inmates of the authorized in sections 307.93, 341.35, 753.03, and state or any other local government; 753.15 of the Revised Code may contract for the private operation and management of a facility under this (3) for the incarceration of any prisoners or inmates: section. A contract entered into under this section shall be for an initial term in the contract with an option to renew for additional periods of two years.
47
ALEC: Prison Industries Act Sec. ____. Labor; Pay. (1) The board may develop by rule and the department may administer an incentive pay scale for work program participants consistent with rules adopted by the Private Sector Prison Industries Oversight Authority under Subchapter D. Prison industries may be financed through contributions donated for this purpose by private businesses contracting with the department. The department shall apportion pay earned by a work program participant in the same manner as is required by rules adopted by the Private Sector Prison Industries Oversight Authority under Subchapter D. Sec. ____. Industrial Receipts. The division may use money appropriated to the division in amounts corresponding to receipts from the sale of articles and products under this subchapter to purchase real property, erect buildings, improve facilities, buy equipment and tools, install or replace equipment, buy industrial raw materials and supplies, and pay for other necessary expenses for the administration of this subchapter and Subchapter C. Ohio: HB 153 (as enrolled) Sec. 5120.28. (A) The department of rehabilitation and correction, subject to the approval of the office of budget and management, shall fix the prices at which all labor and services performed, all agricultural products produced, and all articles manufactured in correctional and penal institutions shall be furnished to the state, the political subdivisions of the state, and the public institutions of the state and the political subdivisions, and to private persons. The prices shall be uniform to all and not higher than the usual market price for like labor, products, services, and articles. (B) Any money received by the department of rehabilitation and correction for labor and services performed shall be deposited into the institutional services fund created pursuant to division (A) of section 5120.29 of the Revised Code and shall be used and accounted for as provided in that section and division (B) of section 5145.03 of the Revised Code. (C) Any money received by the department of rehabilitation and correction for articles manufactured and agricultural products produced in penal and correctional institutions shall be deposited into the Ohio penal industries manufacturing fund created pursuant to division (B) of section 5120.29 of the Revised Code and shall be used and accounted for as provided in that section and division (B) of section 5145.03 of the Revised Code.
48
ENDNOTES
1
Legislating
Under
the
Influence,
Common
Cause,
p.
8,
3
August
2011.
2
ALEC
Exposed,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
3
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
18
4
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
42
5
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#1,
p.
45
6
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
18
7
Ed
Kozelek,
LinkedIn
Profile,
2011.
8
Ohio
Cable
Telecommunications
Association,
Board
of
Directors,
2011.
9
Capitol
Square
Foundation,
2011.
10
SourceWatch:
Seth
Cooper,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
11
Common
Cause
Source
Documents
#1,
p.
57
12
ALEC
Exposed:
About
ALEC,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
13
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#9,
p.3
14
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#15,
p.
4-7
15
ALEC
990
Tax
Form,
accessed
via
Guidestar,
2009.
16
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#29,
p.
49-52
17
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#28p.
53,
55
18
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#29p.
32
19
Jarrod
Martin,
ALEC
Annual
Meeting
Facebook
Album,
2010.
20
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#15,
p.
5,
7
21
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
17
22
SourceWatch:
ALEC,
Secrecy
&
Lobbying,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
23
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#9,
p.
46
24
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
39
25
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#11,
p.
1
26
Sean
P.
Dunn
Associates
LLC,
Current
Clients,
2012.
27
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#11,
p.
3
28
Ohio
Lobbying
Activity
Center,
Agents
and
Employer
Lists,2011.
29
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
45
30
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#9,
p.
44
31
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#20,
p.
13
32
Sabrina
Eaton,
Conservative
Group
Denies
it
Masterminded
Drive
to
Restrict
Public
Employee
Unions,
Cleveland
Plain
Dealer,
3
April
2011.
33
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
18
34
American
Legislative
Exchange
Council,
Former
ALEC
National
Chairmen,
2012.
35
Appalachian
Regional
Commission,
Ohio
Governor
John
Kasich,
2012.
36
Kurstin
Roe
Photography,
Printroom
Photo
Gallery
37
Joe
Guillen,
Gov.
Kasich
Plans
to
Sell
Prisons,
Privatize
State
Liquor
Profits
for
Now,
Turnpike
Lease
Could
Be
in
Near
Future,
The
Cleveland
Plain
Dealer,
15
March
2011.
38 ALEC
Exposed:
Targeted
Contracting
for
Certain
Correctional
Facilities
and
Services
Act,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
39
Michelle
Millhollon,
Jindal
Ready
to
Move
on
Prison
Sales,
In
the
Public
Interest,
24
February
2011.
40
SourceWatch:
ALEC
Award
Winners,
Center
for
Media
and
Democracy,
2011.
41
Julie
Carr
Smyth,
Ohio
Prepares
to
Privatize
Some
State
Prisons,
Bloomberg
Businessweek,
29
December
2011.
42
Bob
Ortega,
Arizona
Prison
Businesses
are
Big
Political
Contributors,
AZ
Central,
4
September
2011.
43
Kasich
Plan
Would
Let
Parents
Overhaul
Failing
Schools,
The
Columbus
Dispatch,
4
April
2011.
44
ALEC,
Parent
Trigger
Act,
WebCite,
2010.
45
Bill
Bush,
Harris
Didn't
Tell
Board
About
'Parent
Trigger',
The
Columbus
Dispatch,
26
May
2011.
46
ALEC
Exposed
Source
Documents
#14,
p.
15
49
47 SourceWatch: ALEC Award Winners, Center for Media and Democracy, 2011. 48 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #9, p. 59 49 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #19, p. 58 50 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #11, p. 1 51 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #20, p. 35 52 ALEC Exposed Source Documents: John Adams ALEC Contributions 53 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #11, p. 9 54 Documents on file with Common Cause 55 Stinziano claims to have resigned from ALEC. 56 ALEC Exposed Source Documents #11, p. 8 57 Lukens became notorious for a scandal involving sex with a minor. Associated Press, Rep. Lukens Gets 30 Days for Sex with Minor, 1 July 1989. 58 American Legislative Exchange Council, Former ALEC National Chairmen, 2012. 59 American Legislative Exchange Council, Board of Directors, 2012. 60 National Council of State Legislatures, E-Verify FAQ, 2012. 61 Julianne Hing, Mandatory E-Verify Bill Advances As Critics Fight Back with New Ads Color Lines News For Action, 30 September 2011. 62 Ibid 63 Lawrence ODonnell on SB 5: I have never seen a more corrupted legislative process Plunderbund, 3 March 2011. 64 Ibid 65 SB 5 would ban worker strikes, punish walkout, The Morning Journal, 2 March 2011. 66 Jim Provance, Record 1.3M back vote to torpedo Senate Bill 5, Toledo Blade, 30 June 2011. 67 Elise Gould and Heidi Shiderholz, The Compensation Penalty of 'Right-to-Work' Laws, Economic Policy Institute, 17 February 2011. 68 Christie Herrera, Stop ObamaCare!, YouTube, 16 November 2011. 69 Scott Keyes, Ohio Becomes First State To Sell Off A Prison, Giving it To Prison Directors Former Private Employer, Think Progress, 22 September 2011. 70 Tom Beyerlein and Laura Bischoff, Records, political ties of private prisons raise concerns in Ohio, Springfield News-Sun, 7 August 2011. 71 SourceWatch: Corrections Corporation of America, Center for Media and Democracy, 2 January 2012. 72 Scott Keyes, Ohio Becomes First State To Sell Off A Prison, Giving it To Prison Directors Former Private Employer, Think Progress, 22 September 2011. 73 ALEC, Prison Correctional Facilities Act, The Heartland Institute, 1995. 74 ALEC, Privatization Initiative Panel Act, The Heartland Institute, 1995. 75 ALEC, Amercias Protected Classes IV The Inequities Found in Public Employee Compensation, The Heartland Institute, December 1997. 76 William D. Eggers, ALEC, Show Me the Money: Budget Cutting Strategies for Cash-Strapped States, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, p. 7-8, July 2002. 77 ALEC, State Budget Reform Toolkit, ALEC, p. 34-35, 2001.
50